199 



A UPPER TULE ASSOCIATION, INC 



Ma 



p. O. BOX 68 

 CAMP NELSON. CALIFORNIA 93208 



March 3, 199^ 



The Honorable Charlie Rose HI 



Chairman, Specialty Crops and Natural Resources 



105 Cannon House Office Building 



Washington, D.C. 20515 



Dear Chairman Rose: 



The overwhelming majority of mountain area residents comprising 

 the Upper Tule Association are adamantly opposed to H.R. 2153* the 

 Giant Sequoia Preservation Act. Please note our opixjsition for the 

 record. 



The premise of the bill is misleading. It implies that the 

 forest would function better as some sort of a park. In reality, 

 the 442,000 acres involved would be much healthier in its present - 

 multiple-use status. Changes in forest management and policy can 

 always be made on an individual basis as necessary. In addition, 

 the Giant Sequoias are already protected by Presidential Proclam- 

 ation and the 1990 Mediated Settlement. Use of the deceptive, but 

 persuasive title, "Giant Sequoia Preservation Act" is dishonest 

 and unfair. 



The bill is also very poorly written, whether by accident or 

 by design. The authority given to the "committee" is ambiguous. 

 A reasonable person might conclude that the committee will have 

 whatever power it wishes to exercise. 



Finally, there is the much-argued matter of cost. California 

 is already struggling through a long term recession. Few of us 

 would object to the necessary elimination of jobs and revenues if 

 the end result truly was an improved forest. The health of the 

 forest however can be better enhanced through responsible multiple- 

 use and by modification where necessary without wholesale elimination 

 of jobs and taxes. 



Please consider the opinions, of mountain and forest area res- 

 idents when debating H.R. 2153. Thank you. 



Sincerely, 



aincerexy, >o 



Marvin Stonecipher, President 

 Upper Tule Association, Inc. 



"Serving the Ten Communities of the Upper Tule Recreation Area' 



